Why Volition uses real models for promotional campaigns?

[it's a gabe]

Dunno if anyone else noticed (probably have, cos it's too obvious), but SR's posters and even IV's cover features real models -- as in, flesh and bone models instead of CG models. They're extremely photoshoped to give this digital feeling, but if you look close enough you can see they're way too detailed -- in a level that it makes no sense for the promotional material to be so much more detailed than the game, not to mention different. Take Shaundi's "art" from The Third and IV, for example:

http://www.impulsegamer.com/news/saints03.jpg

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/147/4/4/saints_row_iv___shaundi_wallpaper_by_pricelessdamnation-d66uav8.jpg

For those who might feel offended for me bringing this up, please understand that I don't intend this as criticism. I actually think the promotional material is of high quality and although is not similar to the game, both are still good looking. I'm just curious, that's all

[jamesc70]

Why does Burger King hire professional photographers that use non-food props to capture the perfect picture of a burger?

Because people eat (consume) with their eyes. The worst tasting food that looks great will taste better than the best looking food that looks like mud. There are exceptions, but you could classify fast food to retirement planners by that mantra; the best looking will be what you want.

You don't actually think you are going to get a Burger King burger that looks like what you see, but it will taste good, because it looks good. Marketing 201 maybe?

[it's a gabe]

It sure makes sense, but they could achieve the same with CG models, which btw would be cheaper. I recently saw the E3 trailer of The Third and that's exactly something they could've done with posters and cover arts. It looks amazing, it's nothing like the game and cheaper than hiring people to shoot an actual scene -- or take photos, for this matter. It makes sense if the developers want to do this, but it isn' practical from a financial point of view.

[Azel-P]

this is honestly what you think about? you sir have far to much time on your hands.

[it's a gabe]

Well, I think about a lot of things. This made me curious, that's all.

[Dan_the_pest]

To be honest, these look like realistic CG models you see in trailers and such.

[it's a gabe]

If you look closer, you'll notice there's too much detail to them. If you compare the cloth, hair and lighting to actual CG models, you'll see the posters are pure photoshop, not to mention the characters on the posters look nothing like the characters on the game. A CG model like the ones in The Third trailer would at least resemble the actual in game characters models.

[Donoghu]

The reason why using actors's bases for promotional content in a video game is actually a marketing strategy that remove the common possible problem of showing off removed content.

When those posters and picture concepts were being made, the game wasn't even close of being launched and thust they couldn't put anything without having the risk that its content might be different. By taking things (actors for example) that are clearly not inside the game as is, they remove any possible reason for people to be angry if the product didn't look like the poster.

Also, the fact that you mention that the style is similar from Saints Row 3 and 4 shows that it's a concept that can be recycled/reused and because it's not showing actual game content, but instead something "better" in quality, if SR4 was to get upgraded graphics or changed, it wouldn't have affected the marketing assets.

=Edit=

Also, I forgot to mention... Since there are prints and non-digital asset to be produce, using actors and high quality picture is actually cheaper than to uses the actual game asset. The game is made to render on a 72ppi screen while prints require 300dpi. In other words, unless they boost the resolution by over 3 times, the prints would have looked pixelised. True, on the screen as the things are moving around, you don't notice, but on still paper/cardboard, even 150dpi is noticable and blurry.
(Now, before some people mention that ppi (screen) is not the same as dpi(print), I do agree on the technical difference, but in terms of conversion, they are considered as of equal level. 1ppi = 1 pixel (per inch) made 3 gamma dots : Red, Green, Blue while 1 dpi = 1 dot (per inch) made of printed colored mini dots (mostly partially Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and/or Black unless some Pantone are used).

It's a common issues in the 3D that it's limited in quality. As a graphic designer which works (and got the diplomas to back it up) in both the 3D (modeling, animations and engine optimisation) as well as in any kind of print (been working as a print specialised graphic artist for over 6 years), I have gotten this question quite often about the required pixel sizes of a 3D image to be printed in mid-high formats. When they know the actual size required which sometimes range toward the dozen thousands of pixels, their jaw's dropping.)
(In example, for a 5 foot tall cardboard, you need to product a 18000 pixel high picture if you wish for it to be a 100% quality.)

As ironic as it might be, it's actually easier to photoshop an picture taken of a real person (or a ultra-high detailled CG character) than an actual game character because the concept can also be made HD without making the whole thing suffer.

[it's a gabe]

@Donoghu: Thx! Now that makes a lot more sense! This question also reminded me that Lightning on the cover of the FFXIII games is extremely sharp, but her model in game barely lives up to that. I thought tasking one person with making CG models would be cheaper than hiring models, a photogropher and the whole deal, but considering the game was in such in an early development state when the material came out, makes more sense to use a concept instead of something that wouldn't be on the game. As you said, better to avoid what happened with Ubisoft and its Watch_dogs, where people complained that the final product didn't look as good as the trailers.